GREEN CINE Already a member? login
 Your cart
Help
Advanced Search
- Genres
+ Action
+ Adult
+ Adventure
+ Animation
+ Anime
+ Classics
+ Comedies
+ Comic Books
+ Crime
  Criterion Collection
+ Cult
+ Documentary
+ Drama
+ Erotica
+ Espionage
  Experimental/Avant-Garde
+ Fantasy
+ Film Noir
+ Foreign
+ Gay & Lesbian
  HD (High Def)
+ Horror
+ Independent
+ Kids
+ Martial Arts
+ Music
+ Musicals
  Pre-Code
+ Quest
+ Science Fiction
  Serials
+ Silent
+ Sports
+ Suspense/Thriller
  Sword & Sandal
+ Television
+ War
+ Westerns


Public Discussions

topics
GreenCine Movie Talk
Cult
Those films with a following all their own.
83

Here's a weird question..
Topic by: stypee
Posted: May 20, 2004 - 2:08 PM PDT
Last Reply: August 1, 2004 - 10:04 PM PDT

page  1  2      prev | next
author topic: Here's a weird question..
stypee
post #1  on May 20, 2004 - 2:08 PM PDT  
A bit obnoxious but than again so are my tastes in film (which are from from genius)..

Has anyone actually scene a Troma Film and said to themselves "dam that was really well executed (include acting, editing, directing and effects) and held my interest!"

In order to answer this question you have to keep in mind that, you must be fully aware that the TROMA people make it their intention not to make a good film. Even their foreign distribution (see "suicide") is terrible.
Shaky
post #2  on May 20, 2004 - 6:26 PM PDT  
Yes and no. There is one Troma film that held my interest, but only because I was listening to the commentary.

Cannibal, the Musical was Trey Parker's first feature film and was distributed by Troma. It's horrible. It plays like a bad student film.

HOWEVER, it has the best commentary track I have ever heard. For the commentary, Parker and some of the cast and crew got together and started drinking while commenting on how bad the film is. As they become progressively more inebriated during the course of the movie, their comments become more interesting, to the point that they outright ripping the film and acting apart, gossiping about people involved in the production and telling stories about Parker's old girlfriends. When I listened to that commentary, I said, "Damn, that was the best commentary I've ever heard."

I wouldn't even suggest watching the movie without the commentary, but that track makes the DVD a must see, er, hear. More pretentious directors should get drunk for their commentaries.
sinisterguffaw
post #3  on May 27, 2004 - 7:07 PM PDT  
I'm a pretty tried-and-true Troma fan. In fact, my love of movies is completely due to Troma and Lloyd Kaufman. Considering the history of the studio and what they are able to accomplish with such meager means, I can't see any way to justify any slight towards them. The actor persons all work for peanuts (or more accurately, peanut shavings), the writing (on the in-house productions) is brilliant and often pointedly satirical, and the cult following the films generate is nothing short of religious fanatacism, which is saying something... I guess.

Troma is the complete embodiment of INDEPENDENT cinema, with a "dogma" which completely trashes the idea of "dogme 95" and other pretentious filmmaking creeds. Troma is a no boundaries, no taboo, free speaking, free thinking "community" more or less. The independent spirit Troma exudes is the reason artists like Dario Argento and HR Geiger have had their work distributed in the US by Troma.

Troma also has the foresight to pick up great films by young unknowns, like the aforementioned Cannibal the Musical (which is hilarious with or without the commentary IMHO), and they are a great "school of hard knocks" for up and coming filmmakers. TromaDance, their annual film festival which takes place in Park City UT during the Sundance FF, is a great stepping stone into the world of movie making. It's free to submit your short films to TromaDance, and the screenings are free too, so these short films get as much exposure as is possible, and those theater seats are all filled up every year I've gone.

But more than anything, they're just fun. Yeah, they're cheap, but that's all part of the beauty.
sinisterguffaw
post #4  on May 27, 2004 - 7:19 PM PDT  
> On May 27, 2004 - 7:07 PM PDT sinisterguffaw wrote:
> ---------------------------------
... I can't see any way to justify any slight towards them.
> ---------------------------------

I don't mean to say that I think you're troma bashing (whether or not that's the case). It's more or less just a general statement on my part.

Also, as far as in-house Troma I feel was pulled of exactly as it was intended, see:

The Toxic Avenger
Tromeo and Juliet
and
Class of Nuke 'Em High
sinisterguffaw
post #5  on June 1, 2004 - 7:34 PM PDT  
Sometimes I get to thinkin'... I KNOW I'm not the only guy in the world who loves troma movies and other various B flicks. But am I the only one who consistently posts on these boards? Where's the love?
stypee
post #6  on June 6, 2004 - 6:31 PM PDT  
> On June 1, 2004 - 7:34 PM PDT sinisterguffaw wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Sometimes I get to thinkin'... I KNOW I'm not the only guy in the world who loves troma movies and other various B flicks. But am I the only one who consistently posts on these boards? Where's the love?
> ---------------------------------


You are not alone, I LOVE bad films.. It's a passion and required taste. Even though I started the topic about Troma, they can still be fun to watch. I added Tromeo and Juliet to my queue.

Right now I'm hooked on John Waters, the man's a genius!
sinisterguffaw
post #7  on June 7, 2004 - 10:56 AM PDT  
I've only ever seen a couple of John Waters' films, but I've got all the others queued up and ready to go.

Now how about that Fred Olin Ray? Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers is Hilarious!
kamapuaa
post #8  on June 7, 2004 - 11:11 PM PDT  
> I'm a pretty tried-and-true Troma fan. In fact, my love of movies is completely due to Troma and Lloyd Kaufman. Considering the history of the studio and what they are able to accomplish with such meager means, I can't see any way to justify any slight towards them. The actor persons all work for peanuts (or more accurately, peanut shavings), the writing (on the in-house productions) is brilliant and often pointedly satirical, and the cult following the films generate is nothing short of religious fanatacism, which is saying something... I guess.
>
> Troma is the complete embodiment of INDEPENDENT cinema, with a "dogma" which completely trashes the idea of "dogme 95" and other pretentious filmmaking creeds. Troma is a no boundaries, no taboo, free speaking, free thinking "community" more or less. The independent spirit Troma exudes is the reason artists like Dario Argento and HR Geiger have had their work distributed in the US by Troma.

Just to be contentious, I'll state that while it's cool for the people involved that they can make a career out of what they're doing, the actual Troma movies don't stand up, at least anything since "Toxic Avenger."

I'm easily willing to look past a low budget, or pure gratuity, but the movies are fucking boring. Maybe in the 80's they were something different and interesting, but they're really passe and repetitive now. How can anybody rationalize liking "Sgt. Kabukiman," aside from the fact that it has "Troma" in the credits? Did a single joke from that movie work? And it was barely an "R"!

Have you even seen a Dogme 95 movie? Are you familiar with indie films? Claiming that non-troma indie films are all pretentious is silly. There's only 35 Dogme movies, they hardly represent indie movies as a whole. Plus in practice, the ones I've seen aren't so pretentious. At least, not so pretentious as consciously marketing entirely to a cult audience.
sinisterguffaw
post #9  on June 8, 2004 - 9:42 AM PDT  
> On June 7, 2004 - 11:11 PM PDT kamapuaa wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Just to be contentious, I'll state that while it's cool for the people involved that they can make a career out of what they're doing, the actual Troma movies don't stand up, at least anything since "Toxic Avenger."
>
> I'm easily willing to look past a low budget, or pure gratuity, but the movies are fucking boring. Maybe in the 80's they were something different and interesting, but they're really passe and repetitive now. How can anybody rationalize liking "Sgt. Kabukiman," aside from the fact that it has "Troma" in the credits? Did a single joke from that movie work? And it was barely an "R"!
>
> Have you even seen a Dogme 95 movie? Are you familiar with indie films? Claiming that non-troma indie films are all pretentious is silly. There's only 35 Dogme movies, they hardly represent indie movies as a whole. Plus in practice, the ones I've seen aren't so pretentious. At least, not so pretentious as consciously marketing entirely to a cult audience.
> ---------------------------------

I understand any complaints I hear about troma. You have to be in a certain state of mind to enjoy it. I really just like to rant about how great Troma is every time I get the chance.

Sgt. Kabukiman was originally going to be MUCH more violent and perverse, but due to the sucess of the toxic avenger, troma got funding from overseas (namely, Namco in Japan) and had to bend to their will over and over again to create a commercially friendly superhero that could be heavily merchandised. You can read all about it in "All I Need to Know About Filmmaking I Learned from The Toxic Avenger." Troma learned from that experience the value of not dealing with Huge Media Conglomerates.

As for Dogme95, I don't have a problem with the actual movies. They're all fine and dandy. The pretentiousness is from believing you need to put these certain limits on filmmaking and the process thereof.
stypee
post #10  on June 11, 2004 - 1:54 PM PDT  
> On June 8, 2004 - 9:42 AM PDT sinisterguffaw wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On June 7, 2004 - 11:11 PM PDT kamapuaa wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > Just to be contentious, I'll state that while it's cool for the people involved that they can make a career out of what they're doing, the actual Troma movies don't stand up, at least anything since "Toxic Avenger."
> >
> > I'm easily willing to look past a low budget, or pure gratuity, but the movies are fucking boring. Maybe in the 80's they were something different and interesting, but they're really passe and repetitive now. How can anybody rationalize liking "Sgt. Kabukiman," aside from the fact that it has "Troma" in the credits? Did a single joke from that movie work? And it was barely an "R"!
> >
> > Have you even seen a Dogme 95 movie? Are you familiar with indie films? Claiming that non-troma indie films are all pretentious is silly. There's only 35 Dogme movies, they hardly represent indie movies as a whole. Plus in practice, the ones I've seen aren't so pretentious. At least, not so pretentious as consciously marketing entirely to a cult audience.
> > ---------------------------------
>
> I understand any complaints I hear about troma. You have to be in a certain state of mind to enjoy it. I really just like to rant about how great Troma is every time I get the chance.
>
> Sgt. Kabukiman was originally going to be MUCH more violent and perverse, but due to the sucess of the toxic avenger, troma got funding from overseas (namely, Namco in Japan) and had to bend to their will over and over again to create a commercially friendly superhero that could be heavily merchandised. You can read all about it in "All I Need to Know About Filmmaking I Learned from The Toxic Avenger." Troma learned from that experience the value of not dealing with Huge Media Conglomerates.
>
> As for Dogme95, I don't have a problem with the actual movies. They're all fine and dandy. The pretentiousness is from believing you need to put these certain limits on filmmaking and the process thereof.
>
> ---------------------------------

well said
stypee
post #11  on June 11, 2004 - 1:56 PM PDT  
> On June 7, 2004 - 10:56 AM PDT sinisterguffaw wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I've only ever seen a couple of John Waters' films, but I've got all the others queued up and ready to go.
>
> Now how about that Fred Olin Ray? Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers is Hilarious!
> ---------------------------------

I don't know about Fred Olen Ray, he's very "iffy"... I can give or take a few of his films.
sinisterguffaw
post #12  on June 11, 2004 - 7:35 PM PDT  
> On June 11, 2004 - 1:56 PM PDT stypee wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I don't know about Fred Olen Ray, he's very "iffy"... I can give or take a few of his films.
> ---------------------------------

True. But some are gems! One problem, though, is that he's gone uncredited or by some other name so many times that it's hard to know exactly what he has done.
stypee
post #13  on June 16, 2004 - 12:29 PM PDT  
> On June 11, 2004 - 7:35 PM PDT sinisterguffaw wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On June 11, 2004 - 1:56 PM PDT stypee wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > I don't know about Fred Olen Ray, he's very "iffy"... I can give or take a few of his films.
> > ---------------------------------
>
> True. But some are gems! One problem, though, is that he's gone uncredited or by some other name so many times that it's hard to know exactly what he has done.
> ---------------------------------

Just go to the "imdb", they usually have current up-to-date and accurate use of surnames. You should see some of the names for cheese ball film directors.
jaimetout
post #14  on July 22, 2004 - 4:40 PM PDT  
The pretentiousness is from believing you need to put these certain limits on filmmaking and the process thereof.
>
> ---------------------------------

I think everyone always forgets that von Trier and Vinterberg died laughing when they first drew up the Dogme 95 "vow of chastity." They sort of saw it as a joke, at least halfway. And I think the idea of coming up with the restrictions was to allow for the creativity of filmmakers who CHOOSE to make these films to come out. As a filmmaker myself, I know that restrictions make me more creative, because I have to think very hard about how fit within them.

But I'm not defending DOGME here. I actually have some pretty serious theoretical/philosophical/aesthetic issues with what it usually produces. But I think the word "pretentious" is very much overused and, more often than not, misapplied. When someone uses the word, a lot of times they just don't understand what is being attempted. I think that was the case here. But that's no slur on you, SinnyG.

sinisterguffaw
post #15  on July 23, 2004 - 11:33 AM PDT  
That's a good point, jaimetout. I haven't ever looked into what was behind the surface of DOGME to try and find out the "why's" behind it. And it is all too easy to just pass something or someone off as pretentious and be done with it (and I'm lazy enough to do just that).

That's a good point about restrictions, too. Although I think some of the restrictions DOGME uses are more of a hinderance to the creation of real art than they are an aid.

That said, I do, nevertheless, like some of Von Trier's movies a great deal. But I'm not a big fan of his DOGME style films, generally. I'll have to see more before I can really say anything more about it.
jaimetout
post #16  on July 23, 2004 - 10:36 PM PDT  
> On July 23, 2004 - 11:33 AM PDT sinisterguffaw wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> That's a good point about restrictions, too. Although I think some of the restrictions DOGME uses are more of a hinderance to the creation of real art than they are an aid.
> ---------------------------------

I very much agree with you there. Like I said, I have some serious problems with the Dogme approach. The whole idea they seem to be trying to get across is that films should be truer to "reality" than they currently are. First of all, that's an impossibility. Watching the ins and outs of the "reality TV" trend is the easiest way to see that images claiming to be "realistic" are often the most manipulative of all. In a more general sense, I think that anything processed by a human consciousness (or consciousnesses) is going to be affected and colored by the journey through the mind(s) involved. It seems like a paradox, but films that don't try to "capture" reality are actually more honest, because there's an inherent admission of the fact that a human brain is perceiving things and presenting them as they are seen by that brain. I'd much rather watch something that leads me toward a new understanding of reality than see someone try to falsely mimic reality.

But tangents aside, my point was that people often seem to overlook the fact that von Trier and Vinterberg's "rules" were not made up as some pompous means of trying to dictate what film should be, but rather a way of structuring projects so that filmmakers can begin thinking about ways of moving beyond certain artistically stifling tendencies of traditional cinema. I just happen not to like the particular ways in which Dogme tries to do that. But it's a very valid and important effort they're making nonetheless.
JBellows
post #17  on July 29, 2004 - 6:55 PM PDT  
I'm all over TROMA. But A) they are always rented out, or B) on the Request list, or C) not available on DVD yet but its been on VHS for years, people grew up on the film, use quotes from the film in their high school yearbooks and the distributor (on the vendor end) won't pony up the money for DVD transfer (much like AnimEigo does) because the title is something like "It Got Weird When The Jello Was Really Atomic Waste Monster From Space." And, yeah, Sini, to extend your thought...where's the love?
llibby
post #18  on July 29, 2004 - 7:16 PM PDT  
what's a good troma film to start with?
sinisterguffaw
post #19  on July 29, 2004 - 11:09 PM PDT  
see:

The Toxic Avenger
Tromeo and Juliet
and
Class of Nuke 'Em High


Troma films are very low budget films that are either made in-house and directed by Lloyd Kaufman (the president and co-founder of Troma) or more often they are pick-ups from young, often first-time filmmakers. They are usually starring starving students who work for pencil shavings and unsalted pretzels. The latest Troma Blockbuster (Citizen Toxie: Toxic Avenger IV) had a whopping budget of I believe 500,000 bucks. I think that makes it the second or third biggest budget in studio history.

Basically, Troma epitomizes the idea of Independant Cinema and filmmaking as an art form. And then they throw in a bunch of violence and sex. Because it sells. Which is sad really, but sadder still that that's why I love troma so very much. They're completely aware of what they're doing, and they don't pussyfoot around.

If you want more Troma recommendations, check the Tromadance thread or the Troma list. I'll provide links in minute.
llibby
post #20  on July 31, 2004 - 4:56 PM PDT  
> On July 29, 2004 - 11:09 PM PDT sinisterguffaw wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> see:
>
> The Toxic Avenger
> Tromeo and Juliet
> and
> Class of Nuke 'Em High
>
>
> Troma films are very low budget films that are either made in-house and directed by Lloyd Kaufman (the president and co-founder of Troma) or more often they are pick-ups from young, often first-time filmmakers. They are usually starring starving students who work for pencil shavings and unsalted pretzels. The latest Troma Blockbuster (Citizen Toxie: Toxic Avenger IV) had a whopping budget of I believe 500,000 bucks. I think that makes it the second or third biggest budget in studio history.
>
> Basically, Troma epitomizes the idea of Independant Cinema and filmmaking as an art form. And then they throw in a bunch of violence and sex. Because it sells. Which is sad really, but sadder still that that's why I love troma so very much. They're completely aware of what they're doing, and they don't pussyfoot around.
>
> If you want more Troma recommendations, check the Tromadance thread or the Troma list. I'll provide links in minute.
> ---------------------------------


i actually saw toxic avenger 4 (well i think it was four, it was definitely not the first, i am almost positive ron jermey wasn't in the first). i actually picked it up thinking, hey i need to see a troma film, and thinking it was the first toxic avenger (gahhh, i am just a little flakey sometimes). so i feel maybe i had ought to see something more typical of the studio, less celebrities (albeit b-list celebrities), less money. plus i was a bit iratated because i paid over thirty dollars for for citizen toxie at saturday matinee, when at work i would have probably only paid 20ish. of course that always seemed to happen to me at that place. not sure where all this is going... oh yea so i will put toxic avenger 1, tromeo and juliet, and class of nuke'em high in my queue. my amazingly long queue.
page  1  2      prev | next

about greencine · donations · refer a friend · support · help · genres
contact us · press room · privacy policy · terms · sitemap · affiliates · advertise

Copyright © 2005 GreenCine LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.